About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
MSNBC 11
MSNBCW 11
CSPAN 5
CNN 3
CSPAN2 3
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 37
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
military action is not a viable, feasible, responsible option. >> chris lawrence is at the pentagon and chris hagel was also accused of wanting to gut the defense department so what kind of day do you think is on tap for him? >> carol, it's likely to be a pretty rough one. with avenue got word from insiders haguele is going to testify that the militant group hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that military options are on the table for iran. it's not earth-shattering, except when you compare it to what he's already said. chuck hagel's past is about to come roaring back at him. >> good morning, guys, how are you. >> reporter: how he's voted, what he said. >> he has insisted that the israelis negotiate with hamas, a terrorist organization. >> reporter: so one of the first questions could be, will you support israel? recently hagel promised he would, unequivocably saying his record's been distorted but he'll have to explain what he said before his nomination. >> mike referenced to a quote "jewish lobby" which i don't believe exists. >> reporter: senator also demand to know what h
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
's point of view and that they could be comfortable with him leading the pentagon. thomas? >> kelly o'donnell reporting for us from d.c. >>> joining us here in studio ed schultz, host of "the ed show." good to have you here. >> good to be here. >> let's take a listen. john mccain is just now questioning, so let's listen in. >> sure. >> great members of this committee who have contributed so much to our nation's defense. senator hagel, members of this committee will raise questions reflecting concerns with your policy positions. they're not reasonable people disagreeing, they're fundamental disagreements. our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your world view on critical areas of national security including security in the middle east. with that in mind, let me begin with your opposition to the surge in iraq. 2006 we lost -- republicans lost the election and we began the surge, and you wrote a piece in "the washington post," quote, leaving iraq honorably. 2007 you committed -- you said it's not in the national interest to deepen its military involvement.
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
to perform a same-sex marriage in your view if he objected based on conscience? >> well i think the pentagon regulations show that same-sex marriage is legal in nine states. >> would a chaplain be able to bow out of that procedure based on conscience? >> certainly. what we don't want, though, is -- senator his point is for someone to be denied to be married in a chapel or a facility and so on. but certainly as a matter of conscience, yes. what i'm talking about is strict interpretation of defending the law which defends rights. >> thank you for clarifying that and thank you for calling me early on. we had our conversation on january 8, and i appreciated that opportunity. you just said that your statements over time have been -- have gotten a lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible. that is entirely appropriate in this context. chairman levin mentioned that in his opening statement that in speaking your mind you had said several things that caused him concern, and he asked you about that. senator inhofe said several of your statements included what he called policy reversals based o
at the pentagon or dod would your position be different? >> no. actually the, there are other issues too. the global zero movement, are you aware of that? that say we want a world without, without nuclear and yet, we have right now iran developing those capabilities, north cree developing those. a pretty scary thing if we have a secretary of defense who talks about a nuclear-free world and leading the way in that nuclear-free world. just a lot of issues there, bill give me a sense. because last week when we watched hearings. there were five minutes for questioning and onto the next senator. is that how it is run today? if so how effective will hearings be. >> i think it will be pretty effective. we'll have full attendance. we go back and forth. i'm striving for eight-minute round. you can ask questions for eight minutes. try to extract answers. try to keep the witness in this case, from using up the clock so that is the way it will happen. it will be, we'll be doing it for several hours. bill: that is true but the objections last week were aimed at republicans and the critics felt that r
this all tie together? what would be your advice to the president on how the pentagon is going to address all of those budget constraints? >> well, let's start with where we are. the pentagon is adjusting and i think, responsible -- responsibly to our future based on the budget control act of 2011. you know the details of that. the chief has submitted plans as we rebalance and refit and unwind a second war and all the dynamics that are changing them since the last decade. it gives us new opportunities. audits, all the acquisition focus, accountability, we are being forced -- the department of defense -- to take a hard look at its priorities. as i said before, it begins with mission then the resources to fulfill that mission and then what are the priorities within that mission. how do you finance it all? if sequestration would to take effect, then all of this will be affected. that is exactly right. we've deferred some decisions. we set back some of the schedules on some of our ships, planes, decisions on a number of things. it isn't just the dollars that affect this but it is the planning
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
policy, just a characteristic of how the pentagon spends. it happens in fits and starts for a bunch of different reasons. the defense spending chart is what economics geeks call lumpy. but when it gets lumpy, drops sharply, gdp goes down. the last big dip on the defense spending chart there, the really big dip there? that is last quarter, the one where we had the overall gr >>> congres m to instr oh, this is s crime, stop. looking back on the latest electoral defeat, the republican strategists are clearly deciding they don't want to be known for having hard line politics that make them talk about women in ways that are creepy. which is why you're seeing the urging of republicans by other republicans to stop front-paging these believes. basically they're saying, even if you think it, try not to say the government should force rape victims to give birth against their will. congressmen, you can think it but not say it. does all the language sensitivity training mean that republicans see themselves as having a policy problem with women, or do they think they just have a language problem
, will be with the pentagon. it is only when the nation views itself as being at peace that diplomacy can take some kind of equal footing. until we get to place where we do something as dramatic as repealing or refusing to reauthorize, the authorization of the use of military force and we end our hot wars, when we have a transparent discussion about what our activities are in terms of drones and targeted killing, only at the point the nation decides to call itself at peace can diplomacy actually ascend to some kind of parity. unless and until we reach that moment, it is impossible, politically and institutionally to get there. >> at some point i want to talk about when they announce in the spring that the u.s. is going to transition to no longer being in the lead role in afghanistan when they make that announcement this spring. i want to talk to you about whether or not it's significant if they're going to rename the operation in afghanistan, whether operation enduring freedom. >> that's really interesting. >> that will be our next conversation. >> hopefully before then. >> okay. chris hayes, thanks. ch
islamic rebels in mali by deploying troops and drones to the country right next-door. our pentagon correspondent, chris lawrence, is joining us with details. chris, how many u.s. forces, first of all, are we talking about? >> potentially, hundreds, wolf. and here's why. niger's ambassador to the u.s. basically confirms to cnn that his country is going to allow the u.s. military to place drones in niger. a u.s. official tells me that if that were to happen, you'd have to have an infrastructure there. in other words, you'd have to have operators to fly and guide the drones, as well as u.s. military security personnel to protect that infrastructure. so that's where you could get into the hundreds of boots on the ground. these drones would be unarmed, they would primarily be used for surveillance, spying on the al qaeda groups operating in places like mali. right now, the u.s. has drone bases in ja bu ty and southern europe, but the drones can't fly that far, so it's difficult to get accurate intelligence on what's going on with the militants there, wolf. >> how big is a threat of al q
defense policy, just a characteristic of how the pentagon spends. it happens in fits and starts for a bunch of different reasons. the defense spending chart is what economics geeks call lumpy. but when it gets lumpy, drops sharply, gdp goes down. the last big dip on the defense spending chart there, the really big dip there? that is last quarter, the one where we had the overall shrinkage. the only other big plunge in defense spending coincided with the unexpectedly bad economic quarter for the whole year. the other thing, i say this about policy, it is just about the scale of how much we spend on defense. we spend so much money on defense that when we stop spending all of a sudden the economy really feels it. defense spending jumps around a lot for a lot of different reasons. and when it jumps way down like it did last quarter, that is when we get the square economic growths alert like we did today. we'll be right back. ♪ you know my heart burns for you... ♪ i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. i
week we've seen to budgets slated announcement coming out of the pentagon. one i was looking up just now because i was going to remember the numbers, and that is that the pentagon is beefing up its private security force, taking it from 900, to 4000, and putting a few billion dollars into it. the other one that is apparently being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints are the special forces. tom, would you just talk about a generally? fred, if you talk about that not just in afghanistan but the broader battle at the nature of it and then we'll come over to transit and the nonexistent challenge that faces us in asia. >> i will try to be brief, danny. look, these new capabilities, cyber operations or whatever you want to call them, are certainly necessary, needed, and our abilities to exploit, you know, the electromagnetic spectrum continued as the internet is pretty critical. but it's not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or, you know, attempts to, either by prop 10, or by direct attack, affect the military or strategic situation. the fondn
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
in defense spending. and that's because the pentagon is getting ready for these sequester cuts that will start on march 1st. so they're starting to cut back on their spending to prepare for that. so if you take out -- what has happened in government spending, the economy grew by about 1.3%. that's still pretty anemic and i think it suggests we're not out of the woods yet. brooke, let me tell you some good news because i don't want to be the grim reaper here. >> give me the good news. >> since january, the economy has actually done a lot better. you have seen the numbers on housing. they're much improved. that means more construction jobs, right? we have seen some of the initial unemployment claims numbers that are down, meaning that it looks like we're going to get a pretty decent jobs report on friday. the energy picture looks pretty good. so, you know, it's discouraging that the fourth quarter was so lousy. let's keep our fingers crossed we get a revival of growth this quarter. >> that was the first quarter. we're looking at the current quarter and the dow looking awesome, if
in the middle east. to limit that damage, president obama should choose someone else to lead the pentagon. after all, the nebraska senator is the same person who has consistently opposed sanctions against iran. he's the same person who wanted washington to support iranian membership in the world trade organization. he's the same person who voted against designating the iranian ref fusiorevolutionary guard coa terrorist group at a time when it was orchestrating the murder of u.s. troops in iraq. he's the same person who refused to sign a letter asking the european union to labor hezbollah -- to label hezbollah as a terror group, even though it is so designated by the united states state department. he is the same person who urged president bush to offer iran -- quote -- "direct, uncondition l, and comprehensive talks." close quote. he's the same person who called for establishing a united states diplomatic mission in tehran. he's the same person who dismissed -- quote -- "a military strike against iran as -- quote -- "not a viecialtion feasible, responsible option." he's the same person who sugge
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)